56744 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5068–N–02] 

Final Fair Market Rents for the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program and 

Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room 

Occupancy Program for Fiscal Year 

2007 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Fair Market 

Rents (FMRs) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. 

SUMMARY: Section 8(c)(1) of the United 

States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA) 

requires the Secretary to publish FMRs 

periodically, but not less than annually, 

adjusted to be effective on October 1 of 

each year. The primary uses of FMRs are 

to determine payment standard amounts 

for the Housing Choice Voucher 

program, to determine initial renewal 

rents for some expiring project-based 

Section 8 contracts, to determine initial 

rents for housing assistance payment 

(HAP) contracts in the Moderate 

Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy 

program (Mod Rehab), and to serve as a 

rent ceiling in the HOME rental 

assistance program. Today’s notice 

provides final FY2007 FMRs for all 

areas that reflect the estimated 40th and 

50th percentile rent levels trended to 

April 1, 2007. 

DATES: Effective Date: The FMRs 

published in this notice are effective on 

October 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information on the 

methodology used to develop FMRs or 

a listing of all FMRs, please call the 

HUD USER information line at (800) 

245–2691 or access the information on 

the HUD Web site at http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html. 

FMRs are listed at the 40th or 50th 

percentile in Schedule B. An asterisk 

before the FMR area name identifies a 

50th percentile area. Any questions 

related to use of FMRs or voucher 

payment standards should be directed 

to the respective local HUD program 

staff. Questions on how to conduct FMR 

surveys or further requests for 

methodological explanations may be 

addressed to Marie L. Lihn or Lynn A. 

Rodgers, Economic and Market Analysis 

Division, Office of Economic Affairs, 

Office of Policy Development and 

Research, telephone (202) 708–0590. 

Questions about disaster-related FMR 

exceptions should be referred to the 

respective local HUD office. Persons 

with hearing or speech impairments 

may access this number through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Information 

Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. (Other 

than the HUD USER information line 

and TTY numbers, telephone numbers 

are not toll-free.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 

1937 (USHA) (42 U.S.C. 1437f) 

authorizes housing assistance to aid 

lower-income families in renting safe 

and decent housing. Housing assistance 

payments are limited by FMRs 

established by HUD for different areas. 

In the Housing Choice Voucher 

program, the FMR is the basis for 

determining the ‘‘payment standard 

amount’’ used to calculate the 

maximum monthly subsidy for an 

assisted family (see 24 CFR 982.503). In 

general, the FMR for an area is the 

amount that would be needed to pay the 

gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of 

privately owned, decent, and safe rental 

housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature 

with suitable amenities. In addition, all 

rents subsidized under the Housing 

Choice Voucher program must meet 

reasonable rent standards. 

Electronic Data Availability: This 

Federal Register notice is available 

electronically from the HUD news page 

at http://www.hudclips.org. Federal 

Register notices also are available 

electronically from the U.S. Government 

Printing Office Web site at 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ 

index.html. Information on how FMRs 

are determined, including detailed 

calculations, is available at 

http://www.huduser.org/fmr/fmr.html. 

II. Procedures for the Development of 

FMRs 

Section 8(c) of the USHA requires the 

Secretary of HUD to publish FMRs 

periodically, but not less frequently 

than annually. Section 8(c) states in part 

as follows: 

Proposed fair market rentals for an area 

shall be published in the Federal Register 

with reasonable time for public comment and 

shall become effective upon the date of 

publication in final form in the Federal 

Register. Each fair market rental in effect 

under this subsection shall be adjusted to be 

effective on October 1 of each year to reflect 

changes, based on the most recent available 

data trended so the rentals will be current for 

the year to which they apply, of rents for 

existing or newly constructed rental dwelling 

units, as the case may be, of various sizes and 

types in this section. 

The Department’s regulations at 24 

CFR part 888 provide that HUD will 

develop proposed FMRs, publish them 

for public comment, provide a public 

comment period of at least 30 days, 

analyze the comments, and publish final 

FMRs. (See 24 CFR 888.115.) Final 

FY2007 FMRs are published on or 

before October 1, 2006, as required by 

section 8(c)(1) of the USHA. 

III. Proposed FY2007 FMRs 

On June 15, 2006 (71 FR 34726), HUD 

published proposed FY2007 FMRs. As 

noted in the preamble to the proposed 

FMRs, the FMRs for FY2007 reflect 

minor changes that allow further 

modifications of the core-based 

statistical areas (CBSA), as defined by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), based on median family income 

differences between the CBSA and the 

CBSA components defined by FY2005 

FMRs. All proposed metropolitan FMR 

areas consist of areas within new OMB 

metropolitan areas. In general, any parts 

of old metropolitan areas, or formerly 

nonmetropolitan counties, that would 

have more than a 5 percent increase or 

decrease in their FMRs or median 

family incomes as a result of 

implementing the new OMB 

metropolitan definitions are defined as 

separate FMR and income limit areas 

(provided that there are enough recent 

mover renter household observations in 

the 2000 Census data). 

During the comment period, which 

ended August 1, 2006, HUD received 25 

public comments on the proposed 

FY2007 FMRs. Most of the public 

comments received lacked the data 

needed to support FMR changes. The 

comments received are discussed in 

more detail later in this notice. 

IV. FMR Methodology 

The FY2007 FMRs are based on 

current OMB metropolitan area 

definitions that were first used in the 

FY2006 FMRs. These definitions have 

the advantages that they are based on 

more current (2000 Census) data, use a 

more relevant commuting interchange 

standard, and generally provide a better 

measure of current housing market 

relationships. HUD had three objectives 

in defining FMR areas for FY2006: (1) 

To incorporate new OMB metropolitan 

area definitions so the FMR estimation 

system can employ new data collected 

using those definitions; (2) to better 

reflect current housing markets; and (3) 

to minimize the number of large 

changes in FMRs due to use of the new 

OMB definitions. These objectives 

continue to apply to the proposed 

FY2007 FMRs, and area definitions 

were developed to achieve these 

objectives as follows: 

• FMRs were calculated for each of 

the new OMB metropolitan areas using 

2000 Census data. 

• Subparts of any of the new areas 

that had separate FMRs under the old 

OMB definitions, and that had a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56745 

sufficiently large 2000 Census count of 

recent mover renter households in 

standard quality units, were identified, 

and 2000 Census Base Rents for these 

subparts were calculated. Only the 

subparts within the new OMB 

metropolitan area were included in this 

calculation (e.g., counties that had been 

excluded from the new OMB 

metropolitan area were not included). 

• Metropolitan subparts of new areas 

that had previously had separate FMRs 

were assigned their own FMRs if their 

2000 Census Base Rents differed by 

more than 5 percent from the new OMB 

area 2000 Census Base Rent. 

• Formerly metropolitan counties 

removed from metropolitan areas get 

their own FMRs. 

• For FY2007 FMRs, an additional 

comparison was made to determine if 

new sub-areas should be created. 

Metropolitan subparts of new areas that 

had previously had separate FMRs were 

assigned their own FMRs if their 2000 

Census Median Family Income differed 

by more than 5 percent from the new 

OMB area 2000 Census Median Family 

Income. 

A. Data Sources 

FY2007 FMRs are based on 2000 

Census data updated with more current 

survey data. At HUD’s request, the 

Census Bureau prepared a special 

publicly releasable Census file that 

permits almost exact replication of 

HUD’s 2000 Base Rent calculations, 

except for areas with few rental units. 

This data set is located on HUD’s 

HUDUSER Web site at http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/ 

CensusRentData/. The area-specific data 

and computations used to calculate final 

FY2007 FMRs and FMR area definitions 

can be found at http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/fmrs/. 

B. FMR Updates From 2006 to 2007 

Local Consumer Price Index (CPI) 

data is used to move rents from the end 

of 2004 to the end of 2005 for Class A 

cities covered by local CPI data. Census 

region CPI data is used for Class B and 

C size cities and nonmetropolitan areas 

without local CPI update factors. 

C. Additional Rent Surveys and Other 

Data 

The Department regularly obtains 

additional rent survey data to update 

the 2000 Census rent data in selected 

areas. Random Digit Dialing (RDD) 

telephone rent surveys meeting the 

Department’s statistical criteria for 

updating FMRs covering 11 additional 

areas were conducted by HUD in the 

June-July 2006 period and completed in 

time for use in this publication. In 

addition, one public housing authority 

(PHA) survey was submitted. Table 1 

identifies the areas surveyed and 

changes in the final FMR, if any, based 

on survey results. The first column of 

Table 1 identifies the RDD survey area. 

The second column shows the proposed 

FY2007 FMR as published on June 15, 

2006. The third column shows the final 

FY2007 FMR. The fourth column 

summarizes the impact of the RDDs. 

TABLE 1.—RESULTS OF RECENT RDD RENT SURVEYS

Area surveyed Proposed 

FY2007 FMR 

Final 

FY2007 FMR RDD result 

Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA ......................................................................................................... 998 941 Decrease. 

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX ............................................................................................................. 593 593 No Change. 

Dallas, TX ...................................................................................................................................... 798 798 No Change. 

Hattiesburg, MS ............................................................................................................................. 549 549 No Change 1

Houston, TX .................................................................................................................................. 768 768 No Change. 

Island County, WA ........................................................................................................................ 665 823 Increase. 

Jackson, MS .................................................................................................................................. 638 638 No Change. 

Little Rock, AR .............................................................................................................................. 614 614 No Change. 

San Antonio, TX ............................................................................................................................ 715 715 No Change. 

San Francisco, CA ........................................................................................................................ 1551 1551 No Change. 

Shreveport, LA .............................................................................................................................. 586 586 No Change. 

Clallam County, WA ...................................................................................................................... 617 687 Increase. 

1An RDD survey performed in Hattiesburg, MS, indicated that the two-bedroom FMR should be reduced to $513. Even though the RDD survey was modified to cover only movers since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, HUD has determined not to use the results, given the continuing uncertainty about the state of Gulf Coast housing markets as the pressures on the rental housing stock increase with the acceleration of rebuilding activity in Mississippi. 

HUD is directed by statute to use the 

most recent data available in its FMR 

publications. These RDD survey results 

are being implemented in this final 

notice FY2007 FMR publication 

consistent with that requirement. 

The RDD surveys conducted in the 

Gulf of Mexico areas (Beaumont-Port 

Arthur, Dallas, Hattiesburg, Houston, 

Jackson, Little Rock, San Antonio, and 

Shreveport) used 6 months as the recent 

mover time period, instead of the 

normal 15 months. This shorter time 

period was used to determine with 

greater accuracy how the evacuees from 

the Katrina and Rita hurricanes 

impacted rental-housing markets in 

these areas. Because most of these areas 

had relatively soft rental markets before 

the hurricanes, the additional renters 

were absorbed without significant rental 

housing cost increases. 

HUD also used the shorter time period 

definition of recent mover for the Island 

County, WA survey in an attempt to 

measure the impact of the September 

2005 addition of a naval air squadron on 

the local rental housing market. Again, 

a 6-month recent mover definition was 

used. This area received an increase in 

its FMR for FY2007. 

D. FMRs by Bedroom Size 

FMR estimates are calculated for twobedroom units. This is the most 

common type of rental unit and, 

therefore, the easiest to accurately 

survey and analyze. After each 

Decennial Census, rent ratios between 

two-bedroom units and other unit sizes 

are calculated. These ratios are then 

used to calculate FMRs in future years. 

This is done because obtaining accurate 

two-bedroom estimates and then using 

pre-established cost relationships with 

other bedroom sizes to update those rent 

estimates is much easier than 

developing independent FMR estimates 

for each bedroom size. A publicly 

releasable version of the data file that 

permits derivations of rent ratios from 

the 2000 Census, as well as 

demonstrations of how the data are 

used, are available at http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/ 

CensusRentData/index.html. 

The rents for three-bedroom and 

larger units continue to reflect HUD’s 

policy to set higher rents for these units 

than would result from using normal 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
56746 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 

2The preamble for the final FY2006 FMRs, the 

revised final FY2005 FMRs, and the final FY2005 

FMRs erroneously stated that a 3 percent 

differential between three-bedroom FMRs and fourbedroom FMRs was maintained. A 3 percent 

minimum differential has never been included in 

the estimated three-bedroom and four-bedroom 

FMRs. 

market rents. This adjustment is 

intended to increase the likelihood that 

the largest families, who have the most 

difficulty in leasing units, will be 

successful in finding eligible program 

units. The adjustment adds bonuses of 

8.7 percent to the unadjusted threebedroom FMR estimates and adds 7.7 

percent to the unadjusted four-bedroom 

FMR estimates. The FMRs for unit sizes 

larger than four bedrooms are calculated 

by adding 15 percent to the fourbedroom FMR for each extra bedroom. 

For example, the FMR for a fivebedroom unit is 1.15 times the fourbedroom FMR, and the FMR for a sixbedroom unit is 1.30 times the fourbedroom FMR. FMRs for single-room 

occupancy units are 0.75 times the zerobedroom (efficiency) FMR. 

A further adjustment is made for areas 

with local bedroom-size intervals above 

or below what are considered to be 

reasonable ranges or where sample sizes 

are inadequate to accurately measure 

bedroom rent differentials. Experience 

has shown that highly unusual bedroom 

ratios typically reflect inadequate 

sample sizes or peculiar local 

circumstances that HUD would not 

want to utilize in setting FMRs (e.g., 

luxury efficiency apartments that rent 

for more than typical one-bedroom 

units). Bedroom interval ranges were 

established based on an analysis of the 

range of such intervals for all areas with 

large enough samples to permit accurate 

bedroom ratio determinations. The final 

ranges used were: efficiency units are 

constrained to fall between 0.65 and 

0.83 of the two-bedroom FMR, onebedroom units must be between 0.76 

and 0.90 of the two-bedroom unit, threebedroom units must be between 1.10 

and 1.34 of the two-bedroom unit, and 

four-bedroom units must be between 

1.14 and 1.63 of the two-bedroom unit. 

Bedroom rents for a given FMR area 

were then adjusted if the differentials 

between bedroom-size FMRs were 

inconsistent with normally observed 

patterns (e.g., efficiency rents were not 

allowed to be higher than one-bedroom 

rents and three-bedroom rents were not 

allowed to be higher than four-bedroom 

rents.) 2

For nonmetropolitan counties with 

few rental units and small Census 

recent-mover rent samples, Censusdefined county group data were used in 

determining rents for each bedroom 

size. This adjustment was made to 

protect against unrealistically high or 

low FMRs due to insufficient sample 

sizes. The areas covered by this new 

estimation method had less than 200 

two-bedroom Census-tabulated 

observations. 

E. State Minimums 

In response to comments received on 

the FY2005 and the proposed FY2006 

FMRs, a state minimum policy similar 

to that used prior to FY2005 has been 

implemented. The rationale for having a 

state minimum FMR is that some lowincome, low-rent nonmetropolitan 

counties have Census-based FMR 

estimates that appear to be below longterm operating costs for standard quality 

rental units and raise concerns about 

housing quality. Housing quality 

problems are limited in most parts of 

the country and have little impact on 

FMR estimates. The exception to this 

generality within the continental United 

States occurs in some nonmetropolitan 

areas with unusually low rents. State 

minimum FMRs have been set at the 

respective state-wide median 

nonmetropolitan rent level, but are not 

allowed to exceed the U.S. median 

nonmetropolitan rent level. This change 

primarily affects small nonmetropolitan 

counties in the South with low rents. 

V. Public Comments 

A total of 25 public comments were 

received on the proposed FY2007 FMRs. 

Two comments, those from the National 

Association of Home Builders (NAHB) 

and the National Association of Housing 

and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), 

were broad in scope, addressing various 

aspects of the proposed methodology for 

establishing the FY2007 FMRs. The 

remainder of the comments addressed 

the FMR levels proposed in specific 

FMR areas as being either too low or too 

high, or urged that specific FMR area 

definitions be modified. 

NAHB disagreed with the proposed 

requirement that an area must have a 

large enough sample of 2000 Census 

rents on which to base FMRs in order 

for the area to be treated as a sub-area 

within a CBSA. The proposed notice for 

the FY2007 FMRs created separate FMR 

areas for any parts of old metropolitan 

areas, or formerly nonmetropolitan 

counties that would have more than a 5 

percent increase or decrease in their 

2000 Census base 40th percentile twobedroom rent, or more than a 5 percent 

increase or decrease in their 2000 

Census base area median family income 

as a result of implementing the new 

OMB CBSA definitions, and have at 

least 200 recent mover cases in the 2000 

Census rent data. NAHB urged the 

Department to drop the 200 recent 

mover threshold in the 2000 Census 

data if the other criteria would qualify 

the area as a separate area. Since HUD’s 

median family income and income limit 

estimates are defined for the same 

geographic areas as FMRs, the NAHB 

noted that the 200 recent mover 

criterion resulted in income limit 

decreases for some areas because they 

did not qualify to be treated as subareas. 

In response to this comment, the 

Department notes that FMRs are used in 

the estimation process for income 

limits; thus, the areas upon which both 

estimates are made must (except when 

required by statute) remain the same. 

Furthermore, HUD cannot determine 

FMRs without sufficient data, so these 

small areas must be incorporated into 

the larger metropolitan areas. The 

Department believes that the 200 recent 

mover threshold is reasonable and 

consistent with HUD’s Final 

Information Quality Guidelines (67 FR 

69642), and no change is being made to 

define additional FMR areas that fail to 

meet this criterion. 

NAHRO commented on several 

aspects of the proposed FY2007 FMRs. 

First, NAHRO recommended that the 

Department return to using the OMB 

metropolitan area definitions based on 

the 1990 Census data ‘‘ definitions that 

formed the basis for establishing FMR 

areas from FY1993 through FY2005. 

NAHRO states that the proposed CBSAbased areas cause ‘‘dilution’’ of 

metropolitan FMRs by including former 

nonmetropolitan counties in the new 

metropolitan area definitions, resulting 

in decreased rental assistance payments 

for in-place voucher-assisted 

households. The Department finds it 

inappropriate to continue to use such 

old data (from the 1990 Census) for 

housing market determinations. To 

more accurately define today’s housing 

markets, the final FY2007 FMRs follow 

the CBSA metropolitan area definitions, 

with modifications as appropriate, in 

light of these definitions being based on 

2000 Census data as analyzed by OMB. 

NAHRO also disagreed with the 

proposed rule on including rental data 

from formerly nonmetropolitan counties 

established as separate FMR sub-areas 

when calculating the FMRs for the 

remainder of the CBSA, again arguing 

that this causes dilution of the FMR in 

the affected CBSA areas. The 

Department believes that inclusion of 

rental data from the entire CBSA, even 

when some formerly nonmetropolitan 

counties have been established as subareas due to greater than 5 percent 

changes in 2000 Census based FMR or 

median family incomes, is appropriate 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56747 

3Previously, for the area definitions used through 

FY2005, there was little opportunity to change the 

FMR data once the initial FMR areas were 

determined. In the future, there will be more 

opportunity to revise the FMR area definitions 

based on American Community Survey (ACS) data, 

and HUD expects to see the number of sub-areas 

reduced over time. The Department expects to use 

CBSA rents as the basis for FMRs whenever 

possible, because the strong relationships among 

counties in CBSAs suggests that in the long run 

CBSAs will generally be the best definition of rental 

housing markets. In the New England states, it will 

take longer for ACS data to become available 

because the areas that have to be evaluated are 

generally smaller, and no reduction in the number 

of sub-areas will occur without data. 

4See the October 3, 2005, Hurricane Katrina 

Notice (70 FR 57716) and the November 1, 2005, 

Hurricane Rita Notice (70 FR 66222). 

5By statute, PHAs have the discretion to set their 

payment standards at any level within the interval 

of 90 percent to 110 percent of the FMR. 

to smooth the transition for future FMR 

determinations that will cover the entire 

CBSA area. HUD intends to analyze 

CBSAs and sub-areas on an ongoing 

basis, and, as these rents converge, to 

reduce the number of sub-areas.3 The 

final FY2007 FMR does not change this 

calculation methodology. 

NAHRO also objected to the proposed 

policy to modify the CBSA definitions 

by establishing sub-areas based on 

changes in 2000 Census base median 

family incomes of more than 5 percent. 

In some cases, the result of applying the 

median family income test has been for 

some CBSA sub-areas to receive lower 

FMRs than in the absence of the policy. 

The Department listed the areas so 

affected in a table in Section F of the 

proposed FY2007 FMR notice. NAHRO 

suggests that this outcome is 

inconsistent with the Department’s 

primary area hold-harmless policy for 

income limits. In response to this 

comment, the Department reiterates that 

FMRs are used in the estimation process 

for income limits; thus, the area 

definition of both estimates must 

(except when required by statute) 

remain the same. Furthermore, HUD has 

a hold-harmless policy for income limits 

because without such a policy, program 

rent revenues in subsidized rental 

projects with rents statutorily tied to 

income limits may fall, leading to the 

possibility of project default or 

departure from the program. HUD does 

not have a similar hold-harmless policy 

for FMRs because voucher program 

rules are designed to mitigate the effects 

of decreases in FMRs on individual 

tenants. In cases where FMRs decline 

and the PHAs reduce payment 

standards accordingly, voucher rents for 

existing tenants remaining in their units 

may be maintained in accordance with 

the previous higher payment standard 

until the second annual recertification 

of the tenants’ income and rent subsidy 

after the payment standard declines. 

Thus, for existing voucher tenants who 

do not move, the rent level supported by 

their voucher will not decrease until up 

to 2 years after the payment standard 

decrease goes into effect. 

NAHRO disagreed with HUD’s use of 

regional CPI data to update rents for 

Class B and C cities rather than using 

local CPI update factors. Until ACS data 

become available for this purpose, an 

available alternative to the use of 

regional CPI factors is to use regional 

RDDs. However, regional RDD update 

factors, instituted to improve rent 

estimations and requiring tremendous 

fiscal resources to produce, did not 

consistently provide better estimations 

than using regional CPI data. Regional 

RDD results showed that some areas 

were being overestimated and some 

underestimated. Therefore, the FY2007 

FMRs for Class B and C cities continue 

to use the regional CPI update factors. 

NAHRO recommended that HUD 

consider additional analysis of the 

utility component of the gross rents 

comprising the FMR estimates, further 

suggesting that HUD consider 

publishing utility components of FMRs 

separately. The Department appreciates 

these recommendations, but notes that 

utilities are included in the FY2007 

FMR estimates as required by statute, 

and that PHAs set utility allowances 

based on their utility schedules and the 

individual circumstances of each lease. 

In addition, HUD is conducting research 

to produce a utility schedule model for 

PHAs to use to improve the accuracy of 

their utility schedule estimates. 

NAHRO suggested that HUD exempt 

communities that have dealt with the 

impact of Hurricane Katrina and Rita 

evacuees from losing their 50th 

percentile status. Baton Rouge and 

Dallas lost their 50th percentile status in 

a notice dated February 14, 2006, but 

Dallas regained it for the FY2007 FMRs, 

and Baton Rouge received market 

adjusted 40th-percentile FMRs effective 

March 6, 2006, that were higher than its 

former 50th percentile FMRs. The 

Department notes that the 50th 

percentile FMR policy is not the correct 

mechanism to address the cost of 

disasters. HUD has a policy of allowing 

federal disaster areas to apply for 

regulatory suspension waivers and 

allowing payment standards to be set at 

up to 120 percent of the FMR.4

Furthermore, under section 

982.503(c)(3), payment standards may 

even exceed 120 percent of the FMR, 

based on a request by a PHA to the 

Assistant Secretary for Public and 

Indian Housing. So far, this 

administrative flexibility has allowed 

the Housing Choice Voucher program to 

continue operating effectively in these 

areas. HUD has also recently surveyed 

many FMR areas where the Gulf Coast 

hurricane evacuees were placed. No 

area had an increase in the FMR based 

on HUD’s survey results. 

Additional comments from NAHRO 

seem based on incorrect interpretations 

of the methodology for estimating the 

FY2007 FMR. For example, one 

criterion to determine if any parts of old 

metropolitan areas or formerly 

nonmetropolitan counties qualify as a 

sub-area under the new CBSA 

definitions is that the 2000 Census base 

40th percentile, two-bedroom rent for 

the area is found to be more than 5 

percent different than the comparable 

rent for the entire CBSA area. NAHRO 

erroneously suggests the 5 percent test 

is based on a comparison of the 

proposed FY2007 FMR with the final 

FY2006 FMR. Similarly, adjustments to 

the FMR areas based on median family 

income differentials are also based on 

2000 Census data, not FY2006 data. The 

Department reminds all interested 

parties that a detailed description of the 

FY2007 FMR methodology is available 

to the public at http://www.huduser.org/ 

datasets/fmr/fmrs/ 

index.asp?data=fmr07. 

One comment requested higher FMRs 

for manufactured home space rentals in 

Sonoma County, California. The 

comment included data obtained from a 

survey conducted by the Sonoma 

County Housing Authority in support of 

an exception rent. The survey results 

provide Sonoma County with an 

exception rent for manufactured homes 

of $603, as listed in Schedule D. 

The Housing Authority for the City of 

Lafayette, Indiana, noted that the FMRs 

for its area are too high given its low 

funding levels and that the Department 

must press for greater funding for the 

voucher program. The Elkhart Housing 

Authority stated that the proposed 

increase in the FMRs would reduce the 

number of homes they could serve since 

the level of funding has been reduced. 

HUD has no evidence of a need to 

reduce the FMRs in these areas; 

however, housing authorities have the 

flexibility to set payment standards 

below 100 percent of the FMR5 and the 

obligation to use rent reasonableness in 

determining rents paid to owners 

accepting vouchers. PHAs that are 

concerned about costs in their voucher 

programs can set payment standards at 

90 percent of the FMR, without any 

HUD approval. Moreover, PHAs may 

request HUD approval to set payment 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
56748 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 

standards below 90 percent of the FMR. 

Voucher program funding and funding 

formula allocations are outside the 

scope of this notice. 

The Housing Authority of Island 

County, Washington, noted that its FMR 

should be much higher than what is 

proposed for FY2007 and provided a 

report on ‘‘asking rents’’ in support of 

its comments. The report indicated that 

Island County rents were closer to 

Seattle rents than shown in the FY2007 

proposed FMRs. In September 2005, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) moved a 

naval air squadron to Island County. 

HUD believed that the additional DOD 

personnel substantially changed the 

rental market on Island County from its 

FMR basis, the 2000 decennial Census, 

so a survey was conducted to determine 

the appropriate FMR level. 

Several comments were filed 

concerning the drop in the fourbedroom FMR for the New York City 

metropolitan area. It was noted that this 

decrease in the FMR would mostly 

affect the immigrant community. The 

New York City FMR area became a subarea in FY2007, without Monmouth and 

Ocean counties in New Jersey, because 

its median income was well below the 

median income of the CBSA, see: 

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/ 

fmrs/index.asp?data=fmr07. In FY2006, 

New York City used the two-bedroom 

FMR and the bedroom ratios of the 

CBSA instead of its sub-area amount 

because the 2000 sub-area FMR was 

within 5 percent of the CBSA 2000 

FMR. Now that it has been established 

as a sub-area, New York City must use 

the sub-area rents to determine the 2000 

two-bedroom FMR and bedroom 

intervals. The ratio between the twobedroom FMR and the four-bedroom 

FMR is less for the sub-area than for the 

CBSA. According to the comments, this 

decrease due to a change in the area 

definition creates an undue hardship for 

larger family tenants in this area. While 

no data was filed with the comments, 

the 2005 New York City Vacancy 

Survey, conducted annually by the 

Bureau of the Census, was reviewed to 

determine if an adjustment could be 

made to the four-bedroom FMR. 

Analysis of the data revealed a fourbedroom recent mover, standard quality, 

40th percentile rent greater than HUD’s 

published FY2005 four-bedroom FMR. 

HUD then trended this value forward 

from 2005 to 2007 using HUD’s FY2006 

and FY2007 update factors, and the 

result has been incorporated in these 

final FY2007 FMRs. 

A law firm, representing the plaintiff 

in a discrimination settlement in Dallas, 

requested reinstatement of the FY2005 

FMRs, and charged that all reductions 

since that time to the Dallas FMRs were 

discriminatory. The FMR decrease, 

since FY2005, is the result of an RDD 

survey conducted in early 2005. As 

discussed earlier, another survey 

conducted this summer confirmed the 

results of the 2005 survey, resulting in 

no change in the FMR. Dallas regains its 

50th percentile FMR in FY2007, 

effective October 1, 2006, which it lost 

effective March 1, 2006. Because the 

FY2007 FMR for Dallas represents the 

best data that are available, reverting to 

the FY2005 FMR is not appropriate. 

Two areas that specifically requested 

changes in their FMR areas are Santa 

Barbara County, California, and 

Dartmouth Town, Massachusetts. Santa 

Barbara would like to be split into North 

and South County housing markets with 

rents determined by apartment data. 

These data are not statistically valid and 

cannot be used to establish FMRs. The 

difference in the Santa Barbara County 

rents can be met by applying exception 

payment standards in the high-rent 

jurisdictions. Dartmouth is and has 

always been part of the New Bedford 

metropolitan area. The similarity in 

rents between Dartmouth and 

Providence is not justification for 

including it in the Providence 

metropolitan area. Again, exception 

payment standards can be requested to 

help Section 8 voucher holders find 

units in this area. 

Several PHAs noted that their FMRs 

were too low. The Housing Authority of 

Lake Charles, Louisiana, stated that it is 

struggling to provide decent, safe, 

sanitary, and affordable housing under 

its Section 8 program. Landlords are 

facing increased repair and insurance 

costs as a result of the damage inflicted 

by Hurricane Rita. Lake Charles, like 

other areas designated as federal 

disaster areas, may apply for regulatory 

suspension waivers and set its payment 

standards at 120 percent of the FMR. 

The San Francisco Housing Authority 

stated that its rental market is tightening 

and was hopeful that the HUD survey 

would verify this result. The survey did 

not find higher rents; however, HUD 

will continue to follow this volatile 

rental market. The City of Casper, 

Wyoming, said it was conducting its 

own survey, but did not submit the 

results in time for this final notice. The 

Michigan State Housing Development 

Authority noted that the change in the 

geographic area definitions for Lenawee 

and Muskegon counties in Michigan has 

significantly reduced their FMRs and 

that these reductions have significantly 

affected the ability of tenants to use 

their vouchers. The PHA intends to 

conduct surveys of these areas, but the 

results will not be completed in time for 

this publication. 

Mora Housing Management, Inc., 

requested that the revisions made to 

FY2006 FMRs in Puerto Rico, effective 

June 2, 2006, be made retroactive to 

provide relief for Mod Rehab properties 

constrained by the lower FMRs in 

metropolitan areas that were in place 

from October 1, 2005, to June 1, 2006, 

since the lowest rent must be used in all 

cases. HUD cannot make the Puerto Rico 

FMR revisions retroactive in this notice. 

Any procedural changes that can be 

made for the affected Puerto Rico Mod 

Rehab units are outside the scope of this 

notice. 

VI. Manufactured Home Space Surveys 

In general, the FMR used to establish 

payment standard amounts for the 

rental of manufactured home spaces in 

the Housing Choice Voucher program is 

40 percent of the FMR for a twobedroom unit. HUD modified 

manufactured home space FMRs for 

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, California 

(Sonoma County) based on survey data 

showing the 40th percentile 

manufactured home space rent 

(including the cost of utilities) for the 

entire FMR area. The new manufactured 

home space exception FMR is shown in 

Schedule D. 

All approved exceptions to these rents 

that were in effect in FY2006 were 

updated to the midpoint of FY2007 

using the same data used to estimate the 

Housing Choice Voucher program 

FMRs. If the result of this computation 

was higher than 40 percent of the 

rebenchmarked two-bedroom rent, the 

exception remains and is listed in 

Schedule D. The FMR area definitions 

used for the rental of manufactured 

home spaces are the same as the area 

definitions used for the other FMRs. 

VII. HUD Rental Housing Survey 

Guides 

HUD recommends the use of 

professionally conducted RDD 

telephone surveys to test the accuracy of 

FMRs for areas where there is a 

sufficient number of Section 8 units to 

justify the survey cost of $40,000 to 

$50,000. Areas with 1,000 or more 

program units usually meet this 

criterion, and areas with fewer units 

may meet it if local rents are thought to 

be significantly different than the FMRs 

proposed by HUD. In addition, HUD has 

developed a simplified version of the 

RDD survey methodology for smaller, 

nonmetropolitan PHAs. This 

methodology is designed to be simple 

enough to be done by the PHA itself, 

rather than by professional survey 

organizations. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56749 

PHAs in nonmetropolitan areas may, 

in certain circumstances, conduct 

surveys of groups of counties; all 

county-group surveys have to be 

approved in advance by HUD. PHAs are 

cautioned that the resulting FMRs will 

not be identical for the counties 

surveyed; each individual FMR area 

will have a separate FMR based on its 

relationship to the combined rent of the 

group of FMR areas. In these cases, HUD 

recommends following the Census 

county-group definitions as described in 

the 2000 Census Base Rent section of 

the FY2007 Documentation System, 

which can be found at http:// 

www.huduser.org/fmr/fmrs/index.html. 

PHAs that plan to use the RDD survey 

technique may obtain a copy of the 

appropriate survey guide by calling 

HUD USER at (800) 245–2691. Larger 

PHAs should request ‘‘Random Digit 

Dialing Surveys; A Guide to Assist 

Larger Housing Agencies in Preparing 

Fair Market Rent Comments.’’ Smaller 

PHAs should obtain ‘‘Rental Housing 

Surveys; A Guide to Assist Smaller 

Housing Agencies in Preparing Fair 

Market Rent Comments.’’ These guides 

are also available at http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html. 

HUD prefers, but does not mandate, 

the use of RDD telephone surveys, or the 

more traditional method described in 

the small PHA survey guide. Other 

survey methodologies are acceptable if 

they provide statistically reliable, 

unbiased estimates of the 40th 

percentile gross rent. Survey samples 

should preferably be randomly drawn 

from a complete list of rental units for 

the FMR area. If this is not feasible, the 

selected sample must be drawn to be 

statistically representative of the entire 

rental housing stock of the FMR area. In 

particular, surveys must include units of 

all rent levels and be representative by 

structure type (including single-family, 

duplex, and other small rental 

properties), age of housing unit, and 

geographic location. The decennial 

Census should be used as a starting 

point and means of verification used for 

determining whether the sample is 

representative of the FMR area’s rental 

housing stock. All survey results must 

be fully documented. 

A PHA or contractor that cannot 

obtain the recommended number of 

sample responses after reasonable 

efforts should consult with HUD before 

abandoning its survey; in such 

situations, HUD may find it appropriate 

to relax normal sample size 

requirements. 

Accordingly, the FMR Schedules, 

which will not be codified in 24 CFR 

part 888, are amended as follows: 

Dated: September 21, 2006. 

Darlene F. Williams, 

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development 

and Research. 

Fair Market Rents for the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program 

Schedules B and D—General 

Explanatory Notes 

1. Geographic Coverage 

a. Metropolitan Areas—FMRs are 

market-wide rent estimates that are 

intended to provide housing 

opportunities throughout the geographic 

area in which rental-housing units are 

in direct competition. The FY2007 

FMRs reflect a change in metropolitan 

area definition where HUD is using 

CBSAs which are made up of one or 

more counties, as defined by OMB, with 

some modifications. HUD is generally 

assigning separate FMRs to the 

component counties of CBSA 

micropolitan areas. 

b. Modifications to OMB Definitions—

Following OMB guidance, the 

estimation procedure for the FY2007 

FMRs incorporates the 2003 OMB 

definitions of metropolitan areas based 

on the new CBSA standards, as 

implemented with 2000 Census data, 

but makes adjustments to the definitions 

to separate subparts of these areas where 

FMRs or median family incomes would 

otherwise change significantly if the 

new area definitions were used without 

modification. In CBSAs where sub-areas 

are established, it is HUD’s view that the 

geographic extent of the housing 

markets are not yet the same as the 

geographic extent of the CBSAs, but 

may become so as the social and 

economic integration of the CBSA 

component areas increases. 

Modifications to metropolitan CBSA 

definitions are made according to a 

formula as described below: 

Metropolitan area CBSAs (referred to 

as metropolitan statistical areas or 

MSAs) may be modified to allow for 

sub-area FMRs within MSAs based on 

the boundaries of old FMR areas (OFAs) 

within the boundaries of new MSAs. 

(OFAs are the FMR areas defined for the 

FY2005 FMRs. Collectively, they 

include old-definition MSAs/PMSAs, 

metropolitan counties deleted from olddefinition MSAs/PMSAs by HUD for 

FMR purposes, and counties and county 

parts outside of old-definition MSAs/ 

PMSAs referred to as nonmetropolitan 

counties.) Sub-areas of MSAs are 

assigned their own FMRs when the subarea 2000 Census Base Rent differs by at 

least 5 percent from (i.e., is at most 95 

percent or at least 105 percent of) the 

MSA 2000 Census Base Rent. 

Additionally, sub-areas of MSAs are 

assigned their own FMR when the subarea 2000 median family income differs 

by at least 5 percent. MSA sub-areas, 

and the remaining portions of MSAs 

after sub-areas have been determined, 

are referred to as HUD metro FMR areas 

(HMFAs), to distinguish these areas 

from OMB’s official definition of MSAs. 

The specific counties and New 

England towns and cities within each 

state in MSAs and HMFAs are listed in 

the FMR tables. 

2. Bedroom Size Adjustments 

Schedule B shows the FMRs for zerobedroom through four-bedroom units. 

The FMRs for unit sizes larger than four 

bedrooms are calculated by adding 15 

percent to the four-bedroom FMR for 

each extra bedroom. For example, the 

FMR for a five-bedroom unit is 1.15 

times the four-bedroom FMR, and the 

FMR for a six-bedroom unit is 1.30 

times the four-bedroom FMR. FMRs for 

single-room-occupancy (SRO) units are 

0.75 times the zero-bedroom FMR. 

3. Arrangement of FMR Areas and 

Identification of Constituent Parts 

a. The FMR areas in Schedule B are 

listed alphabetically, first by 

metropolitan FMR area, then by 

nonmetropolitan county for each state. 

The exception FMRs for manufactured 

home spaces are listed alphabetically by 

state in Schedule D. 

b. The constituent counties (and New 

England towns and cities) included in 

each metropolitan FMR area are listed 

immediately following the listings of the 

FMR dollar amounts. A metropolitan 

FMR area that includes counties and 

towns from more than one state is listed 

under each applicable state. 

c. Two nonmetropolitan counties are 

listed alphabetically on each line of the 

nonmetropolitan county listings. 

d. The New England towns and cities 

included in a nonmetropolitan part of a 

county are listed immediately following 

the county name. 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
56750 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56751 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.001</GPH>
56752 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56753 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.003</GPH>
56754 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56755 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.005</GPH>
56756 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56757 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.007</GPH>
56758 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56759 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.009</GPH>
56760 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56761 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.011</GPH>
56762 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56763 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.013</GPH>
56764 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56765 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.015</GPH>
56766 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56767 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.017</GPH>
56768 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56769 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.019</GPH>
56770 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56771 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.021</GPH>
56772 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56773 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.023</GPH>
56774 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56775 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.025</GPH>
56776 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56777 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.027</GPH>
56778 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56779 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.029</GPH>
56780 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56781 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.031</GPH>
56782 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56783 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.033</GPH>
56784 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.034</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56785 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.035</GPH>
56786 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56787 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.037</GPH>
56788 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.038</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56789 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.039</GPH>
56790 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.040</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56791 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.041</GPH>
56792 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.042</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56793 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.043</GPH>
56794 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.044</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56795 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.045</GPH>
56796 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.046</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56797 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.047</GPH>
56798 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.048</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56799 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.049</GPH>
56800 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.050</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56801 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.051</GPH>
56802 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.052</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56803 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.053</GPH>
56804 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 06–8273 Filed 9–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN27SE06.054</GPH>